Comment-AMCC-III.a-Training

Edmund Michael

Description

File: < http://www.secureav.com/Comment-AMCC-III.a-Training.pdf >Last Updated: October 20, 2005THE AVIATORS’ MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT(AMCC) is available at < http://www.secureav.com >.About the Commentary: The Commentary addresses selected issues within the AVIATORS’ MODEL CODEOF CONDUCT(AMCC) to elaborate on their meaning, provide interpretive guidance, and suggest ways ofadopting the AMCC. It is intended primarily for implementers, policy administrators, aviation associationmanagement, and pilots who wish to explore the AMCC in greater depth. Please send your edits, errata,and comments to . Terms of Use are available at .COMMENTARY TOAMCC III.a – TRAINING AND PROFICIENCYa. participate in training sufficient to maintain and improve proficiencybeyond minimum legal requirements,Training includes at least two components: in-flight training (oral instruction andobservation by a flight instructor, and time operating the flight controls) and ground training(discussion, written and self-guided materials, and exercises) both of which contribute to flight1safety. Neither can substitute for the other. Training involves: primary training;2 training for additional certificates, ratings and operating privileges;3 recurrent training to retain currency and improve piloting skills; and non-rating training, sometimes called advanced proficiency training.Training requirements for Part 91 operations set a minimum ...

Informations

• Publié par: Bejuf
• Nombre de lectures: 49
• Langue: English

Extrait

File: < http://www.secureav.com/Comment-AMCC-III.a-Training.pdf >
Last Updated: October 20, 2005
THE AVIATORS’ MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT(AMCC) is available at < http://www.secureav.com >.
About the Commentary: The Commentary addresses selected issues within the AVIATORS’ MODEL CODE
OF CONDUCT(AMCC) to elaborate on their meaning, provide interpretive guidance, and suggest ways of
adopting the AMCC. It is intended primarily for implementers, policy administrators, aviation association
management, and pilots who wish to explore the AMCC in greater depth. Please send your edits, errata,
and comments to <[e-mail]>. Terms of Use are available at <http://secureav.com/terms.pdf>.
COMMENTARY TO
AMCC III.a – TRAINING AND PROFICIENCY
a. participate in training sufficient to maintain and improve proficiency
beyond minimum legal requirements,
Training includes at least two components: in-flight training (oral instruction and
observation by a flight instructor, and time operating the flight controls) and ground training
(discussion, written and self-guided materials, and exercises) both of which contribute to flight
1safety. Neither can substitute for the other. Training involves:
 primary training;
2 training for additional certificates, ratings and operating privileges;
3 recurrent training to retain currency and improve piloting skills; and
 non-rating training, sometimes called advanced proficiency training.
Training requirements for Part 91 operations set a minimum proficiency threshold for legal
operation, such that certification is frequently called a mere “ticket to learn.” Rating training puts
new tools at a pilot’s disposal and provides additional safety benefits, even where the rating is not
directly used. For example, instrument training can help the VFR pilot learn to reject a proposed
4flight through a better understanding of weather conditions.
Non-rating training, “bridg[es] the training gap [by] address[ing] gray areas left in normal flight
5training.” It may include:
6 7 transition training to unfamiliar aircraft, including via the use of mentors;
 equipment- and system-specific training pertinent to the safe and effective operation of
8modern technology in the cockpit;
9 participation in flight safety programs;
 weather analysis training;
10 risk management training;
11 accident review and analysis; and
12 advanced skills training.
There is a well-recognized need for advancement of GA pilots’ skills. Some argue that all pilot
training should aspire toward the level provided airline and corporate pilots, since they do the
13best job of risk management in aviation, or, at the very least, that training should be geared to
14help each pilot reach his full potential. Despite these ambitious goals, training and currency
15requirements for Part 91 operations often fall short of the mark.
Proficiency - Proficiency can be defined as satisfying a particular standard of
performance. Examples:
 the pilot is capable of performing a maneuver and has the skill to apply the appropriate
control inputs at the appropriate times;
1File: < http://www.secureav.com/Comment-AMCC-III.a-Training.pdf >
Last Updated: October 20, 2005
THE AVIATORS’ MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT(AMCC) is available at < http://www.secureav.com >.
 the pilot knows when to use the maneuver;
 the pilot understands the limitations of the machine regarding the maneuver;
 the pilot knows why to use or not use the maneuver in a given set of circumstances; and
16 the pilot uses correct and logical reasoning to put the whole picture together.
17Lack of proficiency is a risk factor as significant as lack of experience. Training sufficient to
maintain and improve proficiency generally goes well beyond the mere satisfaction of regulatory
18requirements. Proficiency training is a lifelong endeavor that requires structure, habit, and
19commitment. It is an essential component of airmanship. “Frequent and disciplined flying that
focuses on maintaining both physical and mental skills is the best prescription for avoiding poor
20 21proficiency.” Pilots should voluntarily undergo the equivalent of a Flight Review annually
22rather than every two years and, if instrument rated, an instrument proficiency check (IPC)
23every six months. Some maintain that proficiency also depends in part on a pilot’s self-
24confidence. Of course, this assumes that the pilot’s confidence is based upon real, not
imagined, proficiency.
Pilots should create, undertake, and periodically update a personalized program of study or series
of training exercises that satisfy the demands for proficiency. As one recognized expert stresses,
25“[y]ou and you alone are ultimately responsible for your learning.” (You may be responsible
for your learning, but you are not necessarily the best judge of whether real learning took place.)
26This regimen should “[f]ocus on what will most likely kill you.” “A small number of hours
flown solely for the purpose of maintaining proficiency and practicing skills are worth more than
27a large number of hours spent droning along.” Also, consider the educational benefits of joining
28an aircraft-specific “type” club. The development of a personal pilot proficiency program also
29advances an ethical approach to flying.
The following discussion of currency and competency is provided to distinguish them from
proficiency.
Currency – Currency refers to the flight time and tasks a pilot must complete to satisfy
30legal requirements for undertaking flight operations. It implicates minimum requirements and
31does not guarantee proficiency. “The regulatory definition of current doesn’t really cut it. The
fact that we can go forever without flying an approach in actual weather conditions and still be
32considered current is ludicrous.” “It is interesting that when we [an aviation insurer] place a
currency requirement on an insured that goes beyond the FAR minimums we often hear, ‘but the
FAA doesn’t require that’. There seems to be a real lack of understanding that FAA requirements
are minimum requirements. When you are putting millions of dollars on the line, the standard
33needs to more than a minimum.” “Pilots who want to stay alive go far beyond the FAA’s
34currency rules.”
Competence – One view holds that competence is what you can do, not what you know.
Another view holds that knowledge is an underlying requirement of competence and cannot be
35separated from performance. Nonetheless, competence to engage in a particular flight is
typically assessed based on the pilot’s accumulation of flight hours, gauged against the particular
type and mission of planned flight operations. Aviation education tends to focus on the “what
you know” component of competence, typically by assessing a pilot’s satisfaction of the FAA
36Practical Test Standards or the equivalent. Unfortunately, a pilot’s “competence” is not usually
37tested in the context of challenging conditions such as high gross weight, high density altitude,
or actual emergency conditions. Nonetheless, it is essential to describe conditions under which a
38pilot demonstrates competence.
2File: < http://www.secureav.com/Comment-AMCC-III.a-Training.pdf >
Last Updated: October 20, 2005
THE AVIATORS’ MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT(AMCC) is available at < http://www.secureav.com >.
Some GA professionals assert that the training industry resists performance-based competency
39standards because the implicit higher level of quality control leads to higher associated costs.
40(Such standards describe objectively what a student must demonstrate. ) This is an area of
increasing focus and experimentation within the aviation training community. For example, an
41international initiative is developing a “competence approach” to flight training requirements.
Simulation and Flight training Devices
Flight training devices, including simulators, are increasingly valuable, if not preferable for many
types of training. One recognized aviation trainer described their value to both primary and
recurrent training as:
immeasurable, not only for procedural training, but more importantly, for the
development of aeronautical decision making skills essential to flight safety. Even with
the advent of low cost, PC-based training devices on the market, GA has not come close
to tapping into their potential.
A simple example can show the power of scenario-based, simulator instruction. Ask any
instrument pilot about the lost communications procedure and you can expect the rote-
memorized regulatory dissertation. Put that same pilot in a real time, lost com lesson on
a training device and watch him/her fall apart. This is just one very small example of
how effective simulator training can expose hidden weaknesses and challenge a pilot’s
critical thinking skills.
Without the effective use of simulators in a training program, pilots will never be given
the opportunity to explore envelopes and develop the judgment essential to improving the
GA safety record. While it is true that low-end training devices lack the feel of the real
aircraft, it is not their purpose to teach stick and rudder skills. Used correctly, the
simulator is a platform for fostering analysis and synthesis; for developing correlative and
decision-making skills. And aren’t these the issues that contribute significantly to the GA
42accident rate?
4